Why are there no Christian monuments in Washington, D.C., Government Center? Why are the only monuments, paintings, sculptures, and street layout symbols we see are pagan gods and goddesses of the religions whom the God of the Bible hated and opposed?
"One Nation Under God"....?
5,908 Views |
129 Replies |
Last: 21 hrs ago by Aggrad08
Because it was designed by Masons???
I believe that was one of the main focal points of this video.The Chicken Ranch said:
Because it was designed by Masons???
Yes?
Because the framers lauded Roman classical republicanism, the Constitution was explicitly non-sectarian, and neo-classical architecture enjoyed a big moment in the early 19th century when Washington was built.
I didn't watch the video. I was afraid aliens would show up in it.
One Nation under God wasn't added to the pledge until 1954.
Bah, if they wanted us gone, that would have happened long ago. They disabled our nuclear tipped ICBM's so no fear here.. A hearty thanks perhaps.The Chicken Ranch said:
I didn't watch the video. I was afraid aliens would show up in it.
When there's near 100% agreement, less need to emphasize God. The fight with atheism starts in the 50s as mentioned above.
Why do you think there should be Christian symbols or monuments?
One Nation Under God? That particular god being the one of the bible I would think.aggiesherpa said:
Why do you think there should be Christian symbols or monuments?
Anyone's thoughts on the documentary?
Our Founders were overtly Christian. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights. John Adams said "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin say, "Hello."
They embraced Judeo-Christian ideals and morals, but being overtly Christian? No, they all were not.
They embraced Judeo-Christian ideals and morals, but being overtly Christian? No, they all were not.
BLSmith04 said:
Our Founders were overtly Christian. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights. John Adams said "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams also said in an official treaty that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Sapper Redux said:BLSmith04 said:
Our Founders were overtly Christian. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights. John Adams said "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams also said in an official treaty that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
To try to get Muslim pirates to stop attacking our ships. Lol.
Bob Lee said:Sapper Redux said:BLSmith04 said:
Our Founders were overtly Christian. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights. John Adams said "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams also said in an official treaty that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
To try to get Muslim pirates to stop attacking our ships. Lol.
It's an official treaty ratified by the Senate (without dissent) and signed by the President. There's absolutely nothing requiring that statement and certainly no demand by the Barbary government that Christianity in government be repudiated.
The movie is very interesting..
Sapper Redux said:Bob Lee said:Sapper Redux said:BLSmith04 said:
Our Founders were overtly Christian. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights. John Adams said "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams also said in an official treaty that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
To try to get Muslim pirates to stop attacking our ships. Lol.
It's an official treaty ratified by the Senate (without dissent) and signed by the President. There's absolutely nothing requiring that statement and certainly no demand by the Barbary government that Christianity in government be repudiated.
This is baloney. This is better evidence for the fact that we were founded on Christian principles. I noticed there's nothing like that in other treaties at the time. Why is it written in this one do you think? Like, there's a speck of truth in it, but also who are we kidding when 99% of the people who lived here were Christians, states had established churches, blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, etc? No one actually believed the United States wasn't a Christian nation founded on Christian principles with deep deep roots in English common law which also has its basis in the Christian moral law.
Quote:
This is better evidence for the fact that we were founded on Christian principles
Heads I win, tails you lose, huh? Classical republicanism as a governing theory was based on Ancient Rome and explicitly rejected Christianity as a foundational principle in government. The wars of religion had a huge impact on the Enlightenment in general and the framers. No one is saying Christianity was not a major cultural force in Anglo-America. But the government created by the Constitution was insanely secular for the 18th century. The only way around that is to compare what we consider secular today to what they considered secular coming out of centuries of theocratic authoritarian blends of church and state and to then smooth over the way Christianity and the relations between denominations was understood at that time.
Yup, you guys should watch the movie.
Sapper Redux said:Quote:
This is better evidence for the fact that we were founded on Christian principles
Heads I win, tails you lose, huh? Classical republicanism as a governing theory was based on Ancient Rome and explicitly rejected Christianity as a foundational principle in government. The wars of religion had a huge impact on the Enlightenment in general and the framers. No one is saying Christianity was not a major cultural force in Anglo-America. But the government created by the Constitution was insanely secular for the 18th century. The only way around that is to compare what we consider secular today to what they considered secular coming out of centuries of theocratic authoritarian blends of church and state and to then smooth over the way Christianity and the relations between denominations was understood at that time.
There's no such dichotomy as authoritarian rule by clerics, and secularism. We weren't the former, so we must be the latter? That's your logic. The system of government was completely novel. It doesn't follow that it was secular.
The treaty of Tripoli, official as it was, is not behind 4 inches of bullet proof glass, and Nicholas Cage isn't in a movie about stealing the treaty of Tripoli. Our founding document directly references the Christian God. I'm not saying the Constitution is a magisterial document. It was FOR Christians. They're who it governed.
By all means, please point to the mention of God in the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is essentially a propaganda document that uses deist language to appeal broadly. It has no legal weight. The Constitution does. The Treaty of Tripoli does.
Sapper Redux said:
By all means, please point to the mention of God in the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is essentially a propaganda document that uses deist language to appeal broadly. It has no legal weight. The Constitution does. The Treaty of Tripoli does.
Argument from silence. Where does it say our laws can't be informed by Christianity?
What exactly does it mean to be a "Christian nation"? Is it just a meaningless label used to make Christians feel better about themselves? Or if not, what rights and privileges should the government grant to Christians and Christianity that it denies to all others? I'm interested in specifics here. As a non-Christian, in what ways am I a lesser citizen than Christians living in this so-called "Christian nation".
Bob Lee said:Sapper Redux said:
By all means, please point to the mention of God in the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is essentially a propaganda document that uses deist language to appeal broadly. It has no legal weight. The Constitution does. The Treaty of Tripoli does.
Argument from silence. Where does it say our laws can't be informed by Christianity?
When you're claiming we are a "Christian nation" the explicit rejection of Christian language in the Constitution in 1787, during an age when religious language was extremely common and rote in European legal documents, is extremely instructive. The fact that religion is only mentioned in the Constitution to restrict tests on those serving in the federal government is instructive. And that the Bill of Rights and, yes, the Treaty of Tripoli, written and approved by leaders in the founding generation, limits the role of Christianity in the formation and function of the state is instructive. You have to argue for slipping your religion into government rather than having a mandate to do so.
Rocag said:
What exactly does it mean to be a "Christian nation"? Is it just a meaningless label used to make Christians feel better about themselves? Or if not, what rights and privileges should the government grant to Christians and Christianity that it denies to all others? I'm interested in specifics here. As a non-Christian, in what ways am I a lesser citizen than Christians living in this so-called "Christian nation".
The reason John Adams said what he did, that the constitution is for a moral and religious people, is that as much as enlightenment philosophers like Montesquieu and Locke influenced the creation of that system of government, the founders were also influenced by classical thinkers like Aristotle and Aquinas later. Liberalism can't resolve tensions between a materialist worldview and a Christian worldview. Under a certain epistemological and teleological framework, it all comes unraveled. It's a recognition that the system of government would not survive a certain amount of acculturation.
It's not that you, a non-Christian are denied certain rights. It's that you don't hold a Christian view of rights and obligations. That's the crux of it. Do I have the right to raise children in a society of people whose consciences are informed by Christian ethics, or do you have a right to the opposite thing? To live in a society where people's consciences are NOT informed by Christian ethics?
When I say we were founded as a Christian nation, I just mean that as a matter of fact. The entire citizenry were Christian, so we were a Christian nation. How could it be anything other than that?
Nobody is going to argue with you if you say that America is a country in which Christianity is the most popular religion. Or if you say that Christianity has had a greater influence than any other religion on the development of America. And while I'd certainly disagree with any claim that only Christians can produce a stable and productive democracy, that disagreement isn't all that important if there aren't any real world government mandated consequences.
To be even more clear, I think the Constitution shows that the founders never intended for the government to be able to control people's beliefs, speech, or associations. They might have mostly been Christians, but they decidedly did not produce a government that mandated Christianity in any way.
Having said that, I also disagree with what I see as a common tendency to exalt the founders as almost beyond questioning. They were people, just as prone to mistakes as the rest of us. I don't think the form of government they came up with was the best possible but it's managed to work so far. There's lots of things I'd like to change about it, probably most specifically the two party system that it inevitably creates, but it's functional. Beyond that, I value the words of the founders about equally to any other influential political commentator.
To be even more clear, I think the Constitution shows that the founders never intended for the government to be able to control people's beliefs, speech, or associations. They might have mostly been Christians, but they decidedly did not produce a government that mandated Christianity in any way.
Having said that, I also disagree with what I see as a common tendency to exalt the founders as almost beyond questioning. They were people, just as prone to mistakes as the rest of us. I don't think the form of government they came up with was the best possible but it's managed to work so far. There's lots of things I'd like to change about it, probably most specifically the two party system that it inevitably creates, but it's functional. Beyond that, I value the words of the founders about equally to any other influential political commentator.
Although the specific facts you cite may be correct, the conclusion that you (and the left) attempt to draw from them, or use as justification, clearly are not.
You try to use those facts to eliminate anything hinting of Christianity from all aspects of government, law, and society. Yet those same Founding Fathers made no such attempt, even though Christianity was pervasive in every single detail and corner of their government, law, and society. The Founders were clearly trying to create a society that was not under the influence of any organized church, yet they also had no desire at all to remove Christianity as a profound influence.
You try to use those facts to eliminate anything hinting of Christianity from all aspects of government, law, and society. Yet those same Founding Fathers made no such attempt, even though Christianity was pervasive in every single detail and corner of their government, law, and society. The Founders were clearly trying to create a society that was not under the influence of any organized church, yet they also had no desire at all to remove Christianity as a profound influence.
The framers also understood that society would not remain static with the same beliefs and values as they held in 1787. They could have chosen to enshrine certain religious principles into the government through the Constitution, but instead they emphasized a government free of the influence of any particular religious authority. They weren't concerned with framing the debate as "secular vs Christian," they were interested in what they thought would create the most stable and prosperous country possible, and they were extremely reticent to offer any avenue for religion (and they only understood Christianity as an organized religion with different denominations that did not all agree on the nature of the faith as opposed to a cultural principle) to influence the state.
At first blush, I can't argue with any of that. But none of that leads to the conclusions that the left has reached. For example, the Framers never contemplated that a law or institution should be abolished simply because it had some religious component or support.
Additionally, the Constitution lack a religous framework because that is not the kind of document it was intended to be. It was not intended to be an encapsulation of moral values, but rather a procedural document that set out an agreement on how the government was to be structured and the country run. Any set of moral values would have no more place in the Constitution than they would in a set of corporate bylaws.
But that does not mean that the Constitution forbids a religious or other moral framework for the governance of our country. The Constitution does not adopt the modern concept of "two spheres". It is agnostic on the moral framework.
It is ironic that the left at one time decried the right's imposition of moral values into the Constitution (i.e., when the Court was striking down Roosevelt's New Deal programs on substantive due process bases), but now insists that their moral values be imposed. Almost all legal commentators, for example, classify Roe as relying essentially on a substantive due process rationale.
The fight isn't really over whether Christianity should be allowed into the public square. The fight is truly over which side's religion (and secularism is a religion) will be allowed to dominate. It's interesting that Christianity in the US has been willing to share that public square with secularism, but secularism demands exclusivity.
Additionally, the Constitution lack a religous framework because that is not the kind of document it was intended to be. It was not intended to be an encapsulation of moral values, but rather a procedural document that set out an agreement on how the government was to be structured and the country run. Any set of moral values would have no more place in the Constitution than they would in a set of corporate bylaws.
But that does not mean that the Constitution forbids a religious or other moral framework for the governance of our country. The Constitution does not adopt the modern concept of "two spheres". It is agnostic on the moral framework.
It is ironic that the left at one time decried the right's imposition of moral values into the Constitution (i.e., when the Court was striking down Roosevelt's New Deal programs on substantive due process bases), but now insists that their moral values be imposed. Almost all legal commentators, for example, classify Roe as relying essentially on a substantive due process rationale.
The fight isn't really over whether Christianity should be allowed into the public square. The fight is truly over which side's religion (and secularism is a religion) will be allowed to dominate. It's interesting that Christianity in the US has been willing to share that public square with secularism, but secularism demands exclusivity.
Sapper Redux said:Bob Lee said:Sapper Redux said:
By all means, please point to the mention of God in the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is essentially a propaganda document that uses deist language to appeal broadly. It has no legal weight. The Constitution does. The Treaty of Tripoli does.
Argument from silence. Where does it say our laws can't be informed by Christianity?
When you're claiming we are a "Christian nation" the explicit rejection of Christian language in the Constitution in 1787, during an age when religious language was extremely common and rote in European legal documents, is extremely instructive. The fact that religion is only mentioned in the Constitution to restrict tests on those serving in the federal government is instructive. And that the Bill of Rights and, yes, the Treaty of Tripoli, written and approved by leaders in the founding generation, limits the role of Christianity in the formation and function of the state is instructive. You have to argue for slipping your religion into government rather than having a mandate to do so.
Where do you find an explicit rejection of Christian language in the constitution? What Christian language did they explicitly reject? The Bill of Rights doesn't limit the role of Christianity. It limits the ability of Congress, the law making body of the federal government, to establish a state religion. Because there were already established Churches.
To what extent should we be beholden to the original views of the founding fathers?
We could argue all day about the intentions of the founding fathers in establishing Christianity as having a position of privilege, but why do we care? Most of these Christian founding fathers also believed in kidnapping, murdering, raping, and enslaving people with black skin. I trust we all agree with our society's decision to abandon the overt racism of our founding fathers. We are quick to disregard some of their views in discussions about some topics, yet, we hold certain interpretations of their ambiguous religious intentions as sacred? Why?
We should asking, what should the government be today? What do you want the government's role to be? Should they be a religious authority or no?
We could argue all day about the intentions of the founding fathers in establishing Christianity as having a position of privilege, but why do we care? Most of these Christian founding fathers also believed in kidnapping, murdering, raping, and enslaving people with black skin. I trust we all agree with our society's decision to abandon the overt racism of our founding fathers. We are quick to disregard some of their views in discussions about some topics, yet, we hold certain interpretations of their ambiguous religious intentions as sacred? Why?
We should asking, what should the government be today? What do you want the government's role to be? Should they be a religious authority or no?
Secularism isn't a religion in any meaningful sense of the word. A belief concerning religion, certainly, but religion implies more than that. It's similar to saying that theism in of itself isn't a religion. All it tells you is that a person has a belief in at least one god, nothing more. For it to be a religion would require a more complete world view built around it. Similarly, secularism doesn't tell you much of anything about what a person believes other than their stance on how religion and government should interact. A person could be a secularist and also be a Christian or a Jew or Muslim or a Hindu or a member of any other religion, for example.
And I think you very much misrepresent the goals of secularism. It all comes down to one question: should the government play favorites when it comes to religion? If no, how do we prevent that from happening? The answer might be giving equal access to all faiths or perhaps saying no religion gets special treatment in some specific scenario. In that way, the argument isn't Christianity vs secularism. It's Christianity vs everything else.
And I think you very much misrepresent the goals of secularism. It all comes down to one question: should the government play favorites when it comes to religion? If no, how do we prevent that from happening? The answer might be giving equal access to all faiths or perhaps saying no religion gets special treatment in some specific scenario. In that way, the argument isn't Christianity vs secularism. It's Christianity vs everything else.
Bob Lee said:Sapper Redux said:Bob Lee said:Sapper Redux said:
By all means, please point to the mention of God in the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is essentially a propaganda document that uses deist language to appeal broadly. It has no legal weight. The Constitution does. The Treaty of Tripoli does.
Argument from silence. Where does it say our laws can't be informed by Christianity?
When you're claiming we are a "Christian nation" the explicit rejection of Christian language in the Constitution in 1787, during an age when religious language was extremely common and rote in European legal documents, is extremely instructive. The fact that religion is only mentioned in the Constitution to restrict tests on those serving in the federal government is instructive. And that the Bill of Rights and, yes, the Treaty of Tripoli, written and approved by leaders in the founding generation, limits the role of Christianity in the formation and function of the state is instructive. You have to argue for slipping your religion into government rather than having a mandate to do so.
Where do you find an explicit rejection of Christian language in the constitution? What Christian language did they explicitly reject? The Bill of Rights doesn't limit the role of Christianity. It limits the ability of Congress, the law making body of the federal government, to establish a state religion. Because there were already established Churches.
I also don't find an explicit rejection of requiring blood sacrifices to Satan with every bill. Guess we should get on that…
kurt vonnegut said:
To what extent should we be beholden to the original views of the founding fathers?
We could argue all day about the intentions of the founding fathers in establishing Christianity as having a position of privilege, but why do we care? Most of these Christian founding fathers also believed in kidnapping, murdering, raping, and enslaving people with black skin. I trust we all agree with our society's decision to abandon the overt racism of our founding fathers. We are quick to disregard some of their views in discussions about some topics, yet, we hold certain interpretations of their ambiguous religious intentions as sacred? Why?
We should asking, what should the government be today? What do you want the government's role to be? Should they be a religious authority or no?
That's easy. To the extent that their views are good and true. To the extent that they weren't, we shouldn't.
I'm not lionizing the founding fathers. I'm saying the Constitution doesn't give permission to be hedonistic.
Bob Lee said:kurt vonnegut said:
To what extent should we be beholden to the original views of the founding fathers?
We could argue all day about the intentions of the founding fathers in establishing Christianity as having a position of privilege, but why do we care? Most of these Christian founding fathers also believed in kidnapping, murdering, raping, and enslaving people with black skin. I trust we all agree with our society's decision to abandon the overt racism of our founding fathers. We are quick to disregard some of their views in discussions about some topics, yet, we hold certain interpretations of their ambiguous religious intentions as sacred? Why?
We should asking, what should the government be today? What do you want the government's role to be? Should they be a religious authority or no?
That's easy. To the extent that their views are good and true. To the extent that they weren't, we shouldn't.
I'm not lionizing the founding fathers. I'm saying the Constitution doesn't give permission to be hedonistic.
How, exactly, is that decided?
Florida Aggie
Texas A&M Offers Iowa WR Jacob Bostick (Transfer Portal)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
73
Spaceship
Texas A&M Offers Iowa WR Jacob Bostick (Transfer Portal)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
68
Bullpen Chias
Buy the sip season ticket holder offers. A&M/tu Football Game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
39
amcbaseball11
Rapid Reaction: Aggies drop Friday's contest to LSU in Baton Rouge, 6-4
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30